Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

(Detail of a painting by the most wonderful Edward Hopper)

Liked the 2015 posts.

Here’s another.

January 21, 2015

Seeing how, of late,  we’ve been all studious and learning the use of the Wakefield Doctrine to self-improve our own selfs, lets kick back and have a mid-week break! You all deserve it*.

Lady Godiva took pity on the people of Coventry, who were suffering grievously under her husband’s oppressive taxation. Lady Godiva appealed again and again to her husband, who obstinately refused to remit the tolls. At last, weary of her entreaties, he said he would grant her request if she would strip naked and ride on a horse through the streets of the town. Lady Godiva took him at his word and, after issuing a proclamation that all persons should stay indoors and shut their windows, she rode through the town, clothed only in her long hair. Just one person in the town, a tailor ever afterwards known as Peeping Tom, disobeyed her proclamation in one of the most famous instances of voyeurism. In the story, Tom bores a hole in his shutters so that he might see Godiva pass, and is struck blind. In the end, Godiva’s husband keeps his word and abolishes the onerous taxes. (source: Wikipedia)

Most of you will not need me to tell you whats going on with this most…. civic of fairy tales (cautionary tale?… fable? morality play?… whatever). I will, however, address the New Reader.

New Reader? The fun (and real value) to be found in the Wakefield Doctrine lies not in being able to immediately identify Lady Godvia as a roger, her, kind-of-a-jerk, husband as a scott and …and poor Tom as a clark. It does not. The real fun (and value to ourselves, as people trying to better understand the people in our lives), lies in accepting that we have the qualities of all three of the characters in this story. ( One would represent our predominant worldview, and ‘the other two’ as our secondary and tertiary aspects, which, of course, our potential to be better (or worse) people.)

(While the more experienced Readers giggle in the back of the class and compose their smart-assed, but nevertheless perceptive interpretations of this Tale, lets review the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine):

• clarks are the ‘personality type’ that results from growing up as ‘the Outsider’. Through no fault of their own (though, they will go through life suspecting that there was something that was their fault…but that’s a whole ‘nother Post), clarks seek to learn how to live the best life possible, they place their stock in understanding the world, and believe that what they think is missing (in their lives) is knowable and rational. They are very creative, funny and (they) see the rules of social order as just another interesting thing about all the real people around them
• scotts are identified by the coping strategies that have allowed wolves, lions, dogs and other predators to thrive through history.  scotts are impulsive and decisive, mercurial and sentimental, for them the world is very simple: wake up… eat, protect the pack, be alert to threats and opportunity in the day, reproduce (of course! metaphorically as well as literal! knucklehead!) and sleep. scotts are the first pick for captain …of the other team (lol…. no, think about it a little….) (if you’re reading this you were in the other team… not the first team)  they are great best friends and scary adversaries
• rogers are the people who grow up and develop their coping skills knowing that they are ‘a part of’, they belong. rogers live (and thrive) in a world that is quantifiable, understandable, predictable ( in an unpredictable way) and above all has Rules…. rogers live searching for the Right Way (to do things) and will go all out to help others engaged in this task… the Yearbook Committee?  pretty much all rogers (with one clark or so to do the stupid work)

ok.

You now know what is necessary in order to understand why we are identifying our three main characters as we are….lets open the Post for Comments.

(New Readers?  the real fun lies in what is really required to successfully  identify another’s worldview, i.e. you need to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.  So…. Lady Godiva’s husband?  so he says, ‘sure, I’ll lower taxes if you ride naked through the streets of town’…. bet that guy had a supply of banana peels, seltzer bottles and whoopee cushions around the palace and, that naked part?  And Godiva?  issue a proclamation (aka a Law)… that she would ride naked (implying that she would be exposed to all) but then say…. ‘you can’t look’  god! how many times in high school did we have to deal with that kind of behavior!  … Tom?  clark…clark…clark  oh man, dude! you don’t have to make things so difficult for yourself… she doesn’t care!)

 

* did we mention how the Doctrine is predicated on reality being personal?  that last sentence is the perfect example of what we mean by personal reality.

*

You know how, when the conversation strays onto matters metaphysical, someone always focuses on ‘the here and now’? And, you’re all, “Sure, we all know it might be a state of higher something, but it’s nearly impossible to even touch it. At least more for a second. And, a short second at that, ’cause you end up pulling yourself out of it by the simple fact of being aware of it.”

The search is, in our opinion, about language, or, as we prefer, ‘word tools’. Certain words, phrases, descriptions and rhetorical concepts. And sometimes, if we’re lucky, we stumble upon one that is useful to us.

Consider that the here and now is not a point to be reached, rather it is a natural rest state. It’s not that we have to get there, we have to stop leaving there.

…whatevs